Brad, Justice and Privilege are opposites.
The the law applies equally to everyone, we call it justice. When the law benefits one at the expense of the other it is called Privilege (private law - or privi lege). Most of the "law" of today is rally privilege. I suspect that Arthur left law school was because "existing property rights" are really "existing privileges". I commend him, and wish young lawyers would spend more time fighting privilege than licking their lips at the prospect of getting a share of the ill gotten gains. Private property is at the heart of a free system. The classical approach uses the "labor theory of ownership". If you produced it, it belongs to you. There is no "trusteeship" involved. If I produce something, I have complete right to use it, trade it, even destroy it. It's the business of no-one else what I do with what is mine. However, there is important part of our lives that we don't produce - and that is mother earth. The Labor Theory of Ownership doesn't include what was here before we were - and will be here after we are gone. This is the area we call "Natural Resources". So, we must establish ownership rights to Natural Resources - without access to which we die. We could say that no-one owns the earth, which means we could grab anything we like - and the first to do the grabbing get the best claims. If we do take that approach, then when the dust has settled, the lucky ones will begin establishing a system of property rights in land that establishes the status quo. Then, as has been so eloquently described, most of the population become tenants on their own soil. The Classicals approached the question of land by asking who has more right to land than the rest of us. They came up with the answer no person has more right to the earth than another. We own it in common. Now, common ownership doesn't mean we all own a piece, but rather that each of us owns all of it. However, before we can build a house, or sow a crop, or erect a factory, we will insist on being given sole right to the location we occupy. We won't produce unless we are allowed to keep the fruits of our exertion. I won't build, or sow, or erect, if anyone can invade my work on the grounds of an equal right to land. I won't produce anything, if anyone can take my production. So the task we face is to make sure that everyone may have secure possession of land they need affecting the equal ownership rights of others. That's easy enough. We can take the same approach to knotty problems like fishing rights, whale hunting, and elephant preservation, and even the penguins (the reindeer kind). They can all be handled by discerning and establishing common ownership rights and individual ownership rights. Only one example for now. Kenya's massive elephant herd are a remnant of what was. They use command economy tactics and kill poachers. When I last looked at it, the police had killed 32 - except it turned out that they were all local villagers. A Kenyan friend of mine has told me the police are in the pay of the poachers and have, in fact, been thoroughly corrupted. Meantime, the herds get smaller. I no longer spend time on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if local villagers are still being killed. In Botswana (and the other 4 Southern African countries) they took different approaches. Botswana provided ownership rights in the elephants to the local villagers. Hunting licences were issued and the herds were culled of the sick and older animals - and the herds didn't overgraze.. The ivory was sold and used to maintain the parks. The meat was no doubt a welcome bonus for the villagers. The Botswana elephant herds were managed well and steadily increased at about 5% per year. Then the idiots forced a worldwide ban on ivory sales. Botswana could no longer sell (though quite recently a special dispensation allowed them to get rid of a lot of stored ivory). Suddenly, there was no money to maintain the parks. Without culling, the elephants herd expanded and overgrazed. Starving, elephants invaded the towns looking for food. The townspeople hung cans from their trees to try to keep the animals away. I got disgusted and stopped following it. At that time only one person had been killed by the elephants - perhaps more now. Botswana had managed its elephant commons very well by establishing private ownership rights in a commons situation. Now, let's think about doing the same kind of thing with fishing grounds and suchlike. We first establish that the fishing grounds are part of the commons, and that they should be managed bus - the common owners. Then we use the market to decide who shall fish. Why? Because the market is the best way to allocate resources. As they are in danger of being over-fished, I would think that the first task of the managers is to build them up - make them healthy. Garret Hardin was wrong in initial analysis of the commons. English common land was well run by the local villagers - until the commons were stolen by the Enclosures Acts. However, he was wrong to call it the "Tragedy of the Commons". But then, perhaps he didn't know about the two kinds of ownership. I shuddered when I read your "trusteeship" bit, which was probably what you intended, for you love throwing things out into the discussion arena. It would, of course, lead to a society where no-one would want to produce private property, even though everyone would be happy to share in other people's private property. Harry --------------------------------------------------------------------- Brad wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > One of the reasons I left law school was that one of its major > functions was > > to protect existing property rights. > >Why are not lawyers (and accountants -- JDs and CPAs) the professional >defenders of social justice and fiduciary responsibility? Am I >correct that lawyers a few years changed their enabling academic >credential from a "bachelor" LLB (one looking for a mate) to >a "doctor" JD -- one who teaches and heals? > >[snip] > > > I believe in private property, ownership, > > rules for succession, in fact all the capitalistic niceties. Only problem > > it sure makes access to the system by newcomers a bit of a challenge and a > > bit nerve-wracking. >[snip] > >"Capitalism" has not had a very good week this past week, with >the Enron disclosures (which I have summarized from the NYT at > > http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/EnronCalifCrisis.html > >However, I have some ideas about private property: I think >that ownership should imply *trusteeship* and *conservatorship*. >Imagine how it would change things if, if a person who >owned something of value did not take good care of it, they could >be sued for material damages equal to the amount they had >let their possession degrade by and/or have their >possession taken away and entrusted to someone >who would take better care of it, and if the owner >could also be liable for treble punative damages or >in egregious cases or where the monetary >penalty was not a deterrant, >criminal penalties (imprisonment). I note >that this idea addresses the problem of "The >Tragedy of the Commons". > >How about it, folks: > > No rights without responsibilities. > >And, my belief: > > A thing of beauty is a responsibility forever. > >As it is now, ownership is a license to destroy, and >some persons are rich enough to be able to >enjoy potlatching (yes, I choose this wor on purpose to >indict a certain non-white-European-male ethnic custom...), etc. > >Private property can perhaps be reconstructed to be >both socially and individually rewarding. > >\brad mccormick ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
